BuffettNews.com

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
The fact is, there were discussions on the issue. There's nothing to discuss from where I sit; this country OWES the people who keep it free and to even discuss changing their health care benefits is wrong.

Again, noble and agreeable words. And again, you might want to get the facts on what really was discussed before shaking fists at the sky. That's all I'll say on the matter.

You're missing my point. The president is a busy man. The fact that he took time for discussions means there are changes being considered. The details are beside the point: any changes are out of line with taking care of our vets.

diverg wrote:flyboy and sanjaro are you saying that this has not been discussed at all? That this article is total fiction?

I am saying this, the realities of what actually goes on at the VA, the relationship they currently have with private providers, plus what neither the VA nor private providers can or are willing to cover, need to be discussed first. Only then can we move on to discuss what was actually proposed and in what capacity.

You are all so quick to convict someone based on a one sided conversation. It's all well and good to get on a soapbox and spout platitudes about the troops and duty, but we must be wary of jumping on a patriotic bandwagon that is bent on pulling out pitchforks and torches for political purposes. Incidentally, for an article based on what is, in fact, currently nothing more than a quote which might be taken completely out of context at best or an outright misrepresentation at worst.

Nothing in the President's proposal fits what this person is saying (http://www.militaryinfo.com/news_story. ... ewsid=2835) , and what is perhaps more telling is how quick the special interest groups are willing to jump on this.

I am saying, step back, take a breath, and do some homework.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote: You're missing my point. The president is a busy man. The fact that he took time for discussions means there are changes being considered. The details are beside the point: any changes are out of line with taking care of our vets.

The details are very much the point. This isn't a simple black and white thing as there are a lot of private insurance carriers already involved with the VA and medical care is insanely complex.

And to your point about changes being out of line, I feel that it was a mistake for Bush to cut veteran's benefits by $14.6 billion, and I find it disgraceful that black mold and cockroaches were infesting Walter Reid. So yes, forgive me if I feel that some change might be needed.

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:You are all so quick to convict someone based on a one sided conversation. It's all well and good to get on a soapbox and spout platitudes about the troops and duty, but we must be wary of jumping on a patriotic bandwagon that is bent on pulling out pitchforks and torches for political purposes. An article based on what is, in fact, currently nothing more than a quote which might be taken completely out of context at best or an outright misrepresentation at worst.

Platitudes? Excuse me, but these aren't platitudes we're talking about. These are the people who allow us to maintain our way of life. They are the reason we're not speaking German, Japanese or Russian. The people who protect free speech and your rights. Platitudes, my ass..............

I despise politics and most politicians. I don't jump on political bandwagons, as a little homework will tell you. This isn't about effing political bandwagons. This is about keeping the promises that were made to the veterans. Promises already in existence. Homework? Go do some.

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote: You're missing my point. The president is a busy man. The fact that he took time for discussions means there are changes being considered. The details are beside the point: any changes are out of line with taking care of our vets.

The details are very much the point. This isn't a simple black and white thing as there are a lot of private insurance carriers already involved with the VA and medical care is insanely complex.

And to your point about changes being out of line, I feel that it was a mistake for Bush to cut veteran's benefits by $14.6 billion, and I find it disgraceful that black mold and cockroaches were infesting Walter Reid. So yes, forgive me if I feel that some change might be needed.

It would be a mistake to think that I don't hold the Bush administration accountable for the crap they pulled. You seem to assume I have a political agenda. I don't. I despise politicians.......

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:You are all so quick to convict someone based on a one sided conversation. It's all well and good to get on a soapbox and spout platitudes about the troops and duty, but we must be wary of jumping on a patriotic bandwagon that is bent on pulling out pitchforks and torches for political purposes. An article based on what is, in fact, currently nothing more than a quote which might be taken completely out of context at best or an outright misrepresentation at worst.

Platitudes? Excuse me, but these aren't platitudes we're talking about. These are the people who allow us to maintain our way of life. They are the reason we're not speaking German, Japanese or Russian. The people who protect free speech and your rights. Platitudes, my ass..............

I despise politics and most politicians. I don't jump on political bandwagons, as a little homework will tell you. This isn't about effing political bandwagons. This is about keeping the promises that were made to the veterans. Promises already in existence. Homework? Go do some.

I apologize for the use of "Platitude" in this context as I think it was misunderstood. My use was referring more to the fact that when someone (politically motivated) wants to have a bunch of people automatically agree with them or get emotional, they use patriotic terms (or worse) use the armed forces as the backdrop or ammunition. I think we need to be wary of letting emotions cloud our judgement. Just because something might change in how we go about getting care for veterans, doesn't mean its 'anti-veteran'. The current system does have problems. Approaching it from an emotional standpoint will cause more harm than good. Establishing goals and sticking to them is the order of the day. But this is getting off topic.

From the Washington Post:

An Obama administration proposal to bill veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of combat-related injuries has prompted veterans groups to condemn the idea as unethical and powerful lawmakers on Capitol Hill to promise their opposition.

Nevertheless, the White House confirmed yesterday that the idea remains under consideration, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and leaders of veterans groups are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss it further.

The proposal -- intended to save the Department of Veterans Affairs $530 million a year -- would authorize VA to bill private insurance companies for the treatment of injuries and medical conditions related to military service, such as amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder and other battle wounds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/ ... 3963.shtml

There are over 300 other related articles available at news.google.com from a wide variety of news outlets. Scanning through the first 5 or 6, they say about the same thing.....

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:From the Washington Post:

An Obama administration proposal to bill veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of combat-related injuries has prompted veterans groups to condemn the idea as unethical and powerful lawmakers on Capitol Hill to promise their opposition.

Nevertheless, the White House confirmed yesterday that the idea remains under consideration, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and leaders of veterans groups are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss it further.

The proposal -- intended to save the Department of Veterans Affairs $530 million a year -- would authorize VA to bill private insurance companies for the treatment of injuries and medical conditions related to military service, such as amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder and other battle wounds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/ ... 3963.shtml

There are over 300 other related articles available at news.google.com from a wide variety of news outlets. Scanning through the first 5 or 6, they say about the same thing.....

Breathe Jen! Calm down...it won't ever happen!

Even though the current system is so full of holes you would think IT had been in combat!

phjrsaunt wrote:I understand that this is a passion-arousing subject, I truly do.

Everybody take a deep breath, then exhale slowly.

This got buried at the bottom of page two; I thought it might be worth re -posting.

I share strong feelings about this myself, as the daughter of a retired Army veteran, but for the time being I'm just going wear my "moderator" hat and not get involved in the conversation.

Flyboy so much for the "no such policy proposal exist." St maybe the American Legion did not at best take the proposal out of context and at worse give an outright misrepresentation of such proposal.

Don’t know what’s worse, the greedy politicians that proposed the idea, or those rationalizing a defense for the idea. Maybe worse those calling the Commander of the American Legion, a VETERAN himself, calling him an out and out LIAR in his characterization of his conversation with the president. With zero evidence.

At least we’ve settled that we did have the story correct to start with and that those saying otherwise were incorrect in their interpretation and conclusions. We’ve also established that Fox News WAS an accurate and reliable source on this.
The government makes a promise to VETS to take care of their healthcare and then they scheme to renege on those promises AFTER the vets keep their end of the bargain with their LIVES. What kind of lies will they tell us when they promise ALL citizens healthcare. How easily will they justify breaking their promises to us down the road?

keybdplyr wrote:Don’t know what’s worse, the greedy politicians that proposed the idea, or those rationalizing a defense for the idea. Maybe worse those calling the Commander of the American Legion, a VETERAN himself, calling him an out and out LIAR in his characterization of his conversation with the president. With zero evidence.

At least we’ve settled that we did have the story correct to start with and that those saying otherwise were incorrect in their interpretation and conclusions. We’ve also established that Fox News WAS an accurate and reliable source on this.
The government makes a promise to VETS to take care of their healthcare and then they scheme to renege on those promises AFTER the vets keep their end of the bargain with their LIVES. What kind of lies will they tell us when they promise ALL citizens healthcare. How easily will they justify breaking their promises to us down the road?

would you mind pointing out which post called the American Legion Commander a liar?

parrothead216 wrote: Breathe Jen! Calm down...it won't ever happen!

The fact that "it won't ever happen" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was "under consideration" in the first place. I wonder what other wonderful ideas the O-man or some clown he's got working for him might have "under consideration" next?

diverg wrote:Flyboy so much for the "no such policy proposal exist." St maybe the American Legion did not at best take the proposal out of context and at worse give an outright misrepresentation of such proposal.

That's still not entirely accurate... How can you base an opinion on only one sentance or one quote from an article?

From a high level: under this plan, (I stress, one of many on the table) vets would still be treated by the vet's administration. If they had insurance, that insurance would be billed for reimbursement but the care would not be handled or dictated by the insurance company. If the insurance company refuses to reimburse, the vet is not going to be denied treatment.

If there was a guarantee that the vet's premium would not be increased, this would be one of the things that could help ease the burden of the VA. Currently the va bills private insurance as it is for non service treatment, this would expand that. An unlimited/bottomless budget for Veteran health isn't going to happen in any administration. So personally, I don't mind it at least being on the table. From a certain point of view, you'd think all the anti-socialist medicine people would be all for it . Seriously though, I feel no stone should be left unturned in trying to get the most complete health-care for the troops. If, after examination of the details, it's found to be improbable, fine. But to immediately start slamming something without even reading the proposal seems reactionary.

Then again, I tend not to make up my mind on something until I get all the details. I admit, that put in the context of the article I have a bad reaction to it myself. But I'm simply withholding judgement until I get more information or get to hear what they really mean about billing the insurers, and the parameters.

The simple fact is that whenever someone puts their lives on the line to defend out country and they are injured our country owes them the best possible medical care at no cost or inconvience to them!!! The VA has fallen short in the past and that needs to be addressed and that's it!! We owe our fighting men and women.

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

diverg wrote:Flyboy so much for the "no such policy proposal exist." St maybe the American Legion did not at best take the proposal out of context and at worse give an outright misrepresentation of such proposal.

That's still not entirely accurate... How can you base an opinion on only one sentance or one quote from an article?

From a high level: under this plan, (I stress, one of many on the table) vets would still be treated by the vet's administration. If they had insurance, that insurance would be billed for reimbursement but the care would not be handled or dictated by the insurance company. If the insurance company refuses to reimburse, the vet is not going to be denied treatment.

If there was a guarantee that the vet's premium would not be increased, this would be one of the things that could help ease the burden of the VA. Currently the va bills private insurance as it is for non service treatment, this would expand that. An unlimited/bottomless budget for Veteran health isn't going to happen in any administration. So personally, I don't mind it at least being on the table. From a certain point of view, you'd think all the anti-socialist medicine people would be all for it . Seriously though, I feel no stone should be left unturned in trying to get the most complete health-care for the troops. If, after examination of the details, it's found to be improbable, fine. But to immediately start slamming something without even reading the proposal seems reactionary.

Then again, I tend not to make up my mind on something until I get all the details. I admit, that put in the context of the article I have a bad reaction to it myself. But I'm simply withholding judgement until I get more information or get to hear what they really mean about billing the insurers, and the parameters.

I am open to debate about VA health care, but when it comes to sevice connected disabilities there is no room for this discussion especially regarding combat injuries. The government put them in harms way then the government is responsible for treating their injuries period.

Again from the Washington Post article Jen posted

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
From the Washington Post:

An Obama administration proposal to bill veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of combat-related injuries has prompted veterans groups to condemn the idea as unethical and powerful lawmakers on Capitol Hill to promise their opposition.

Nevertheless, the White House confirmed yesterday that the idea remains under consideration, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and leaders of veterans groups are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss it further.

ph4ever wrote:The simple fact is that whenever someone puts their lives on the line to defend out country and they are injured our country owes them the best possible medical care at no cost or inconvience to them!!! The VA has fallen short in the past and that needs to be addressed and that's it!! We owe our fighting men and women.

Thats my whole point!! In that context, how can we say we'd leave ANYTHING off the table??

ph4ever wrote:

keybdplyr wrote:Don’t know what’s worse, the greedy politicians that proposed the idea, or those rationalizing a defense for the idea. Maybe worse those calling the Commander of the American Legion, a VETERAN himself, calling him an out and out LIAR in his characterization of his conversation with the president. With zero evidence.

At least we’ve settled that we did have the story correct to start with and that those saying otherwise were incorrect in their interpretation and conclusions. We’ve also established that Fox News WAS an accurate and reliable source on this.
The government makes a promise to VETS to take care of their healthcare and then they scheme to renege on those promises AFTER the vets keep their end of the bargain with their LIVES. What kind of lies will they tell us when they promise ALL citizens healthcare. How easily will they justify breaking their promises to us down the road?

would you mind pointing out which post called the American Legion Commander a liar?

2nd post at the top of the page, but I wouldn't go so far as to say sanjaro tequila called the AL Commander a liar, but did float it as a possiblilty with this line.

Sanjaro tequila

"Incidentally, for an article based on what is, in fact, currently nothing more than a quote which might be taken completely out of context at best or an outright misrepresentation at worst."

diverg wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

keybdplyr wrote:Don’t know what’s worse, the greedy politicians that proposed the idea, or those rationalizing a defense for the idea. Maybe worse those calling the Commander of the American Legion, a VETERAN himself, calling him an out and out LIAR in his characterization of his conversation with the president. With zero evidence.

At least we’ve settled that we did have the story correct to start with and that those saying otherwise were incorrect in their interpretation and conclusions. We’ve also established that Fox News WAS an accurate and reliable source on this.
The government makes a promise to VETS to take care of their healthcare and then they scheme to renege on those promises AFTER the vets keep their end of the bargain with their LIVES. What kind of lies will they tell us when they promise ALL citizens healthcare. How easily will they justify breaking their promises to us down the road?

would you mind pointing out which post called the American Legion Commander a liar?

2nd post at the top of the page, but I wouldn't go so far as to say sanjaro tequila called the AL Commander a liar, but did float it as a possiblilty with this line.

Sanjaro tequila

"Incidentally, for an article based on what is, in fact, currently nothing more than a quote which might be taken completely out of context at best or an outright misrepresentation at worst."

I'm sorry but I don't see that as calling the Commander a liar. I see it as saying the person who wrote the article and included it as a quote may be taking it out of content or misrepresenting the quote. Writers have been known to do just that.

ph4ever wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't see that as calling the Commander a liar. I see it as saying the person who wrote the article and included it as a quote may be taking it out of content or misrepresenting the quote. Writers have been known to do just that.

Thank you, that was was precisely what I meant. At worst it was a misrepresentation to fuel debate on the part of the article's author.